Unsorted FBI Documents

Attachment to Independent Case Review Report

For CDRU # 6423 Case file # 95-255410.

Material Examiner:

Remarks:

Case resulted in a guilty plea, no testimony transcript.

CRM -13412

INDEPENDENT CASE REVIEW REPORT

Independent Review conducted by: Steve Robertson

Area(s) of Expertise: Hair and Fibers

Review commenced at: 9:45 AM (Time), 11/06/01 (Date)

File#: 95-255410

Laboratory #(s): 30518029

30602078

30718059

Examiner(s) & Symbols

Reviewed

Not Reviewed

Reviewed

Not Reviewed

RQ

Xn

□

□

D

UL

□

Xo

□

D

□

D

□

a

Materials Reviewed

Trial testimony transcripts) of: none available

Testimony Date(s): Pages;

Laboratory, Report(s):

Laboratory Number:

30518029/30602078

Date:

July 14, 1983

Laboratory Number

305 1 8029/30602078/307 1 8059

Date:

July 25, 1983

Laboratory Number

Date:

Examiner Bench Notes of: RQ and unknown technician

Laboratory Number: 305 1 8029

30602078

30718059

Page 1 of 3

Initials

CRM - 13413

Was any otheMnaterial reviewed? XQ

Yes

□ No

If yes, please identify and/or describe the material: submitting agency letters dated 5-16-83, 5-31-83 and

7-11-83

Results of Review

File#: 95-255410 Item or Specimen # Reviewed: Q1-Q10, K, K3

Review of Laboratoiy Reports) and Bench Notes:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on
additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

1) Did the examiner perform the appropriate tests in a scientifically acceptable manner, based on the
methods, protocols, and analytic techniques available at the time of the original examination(s)?

o Yes o No X □ Unable to Determine

2) Are the examination results set forth in the laboratory report(s) supported and adequately documented in

the bench notes? DYes XDNo □ Unable to Determine

Review of Testimony:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on
additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

Xd Transcript not available.

3)

Testimony consistent with the laboratory report(s)?

□ Yes

□ No

□ Unable to Determine

4)

Testimony consistent with the bench notes?

□ Yes

□ No

□ Unable to Determine

5)

Testimony within bounds of examiner's expertise?

□ Yes

□ No

a Unable to Determine

Page 2 of 3

Initials:

Comments

(Set forth by above question #, if applicable.
Use “Additional Comments” Sheet, if needed)

File #: 95-255410

#1: With microscopic hair comparison, one cannot determine from the notes that the examination was conducted

i an appropriate manner.

#2: Documentation is poor. The notes are not dated and are in pencil and not ink. Abbreviations are used to

describe the microscopic characteristics of the hair. These abbreviations are difficult to interpret. One of the hair

recovered from Q3-suspect shirt is marked as "NSFC". Presumably, this means "Not Suitable for Comparison",

but there is no documentation as to why these hair are unsuitable. The technician does not document the

recovery of hair from Q3 or any other Q item as stated in the report

Review completed at:

10:15 AM (Time),

11/06/01

(Date)

Total time spent conducting review (to nearest 1/4 hour):

0.50 hr.

1 hereby certify that I conducted this review in an independent, unbiased manner and that the results of my review
are fully documented on this report consisting of a total of 3 pages.

11/06/2001

(Signature)

(Date)

Page

3 of 3

Initials:

‘mis'